In my neighborhood, the house colors are regulated by the Homeowners Association, which requires all property owners to submit requests for house color changes to them for approval.
It is part of the community by-laws and it is rigidly enforced.

There's a lot of talk about "quality of life" and "maintaining community standards" but the real reason is strictly business, to protect property values. Apparently, there are hordes of uncouth lowlifes living here eager to paint their homes fuschsia or chartreuse which might cause the house prices of their neighbors to plummet. I've got no problem with this, the Association is a democracy and we are all encouraged to participate and debate, and by-law changes are subject to majority rule and public ballot.

But I can tell you right now, this has nothing to do with liberal excesses, the community is populated primarily by pensioners of a very conservative political persuasion. Their desire to interfere in the private property rights of others is strictly grounded in solid conservative values. But I suspect, from the snide tone of your remarks, that you think this would be all right as long as it isn't done for "liberal" reasons.

If the community you reference in your post democratically elects to institute house color regulations for the benefit of the environment, then so be it. If it is defeated at the polls, then that's good too. As long as the community decision is arrived at democratically through a mutually agreed-on quasi-governmental structure everyone has tacitly agreed to abide by and does not violate any applicable State or Federal laws, then no one has any business objecting to it. If it doesn't work out, there are democratic procedures available to amend the decision down the line. Opponents and proponents of these changes also should be provided with the right to propose or oppose these regulatory changes by peaceful public debate.

So what's your problem, Ima?